First 3D Simulations of Complete Nuclear Detonations 331
jhiv writes: "The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) reports that 'Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore national laboratories have completed the first full-system three-dimensional simulations of a nuclear weapon's explosion'. The simulations are two of the largest computer simulations ever
attempted, each taking weeks to complete on the ASCI White supercomputer. The Los Alamos team used the ASCI Blue Mountain supercomputer to visualize the results. Additional coverage can be found in this story in the Albuquerque Journal."
will this work? (Score:2, Insightful)
As an American citizen, I am sometimes disgusted by our government. I really hope that computer simulations can replace the war games, but right now I'm not so certain.
Re:will this work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:will this work? (Score:2)
Kennedy played his cards right and set a precedent.
What I am personally afraid of is some smaller
nation obtaining nuclear warfare weapons and using them w/o the understanding of their true results. Not every war could be avoided by ignoring official memos from a drunken leader.
Re:will this work? (Score:2)
Uh, no, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atom bombs (U235 and Plutonium). Fission bombs, not Hydrogen-fusion (or H) bombs.
Directly after September 11, I distinctly remember our former Secretary of State advocating the use of Nuclear weapons -- before we had any idea of what an appropriate target would be.
Which "former secretary of state?" I highly doubt this occured. More likely there was some bland statement about not taking any option off the table, the standard U.S. military response when asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Do you have a transcript or something to back up such a claim?
Again, this is use as a deterant. Whether anyone finds this "threat" credible in case like post-Sept. 11 is another matter.
Re:will this work? (Score:2)
How do you go from questioning someone's facts to thinking dropping the bomb was the right thing to do? That's quite a leap.
Re:will this work? (Score:2)
Incorrect. The US has tested several H-bombs, but we are not the only ones to do so. For instance, the largest detonation on record was a Soviet device.
The US is the only one to actually use nukes on people (which ended up being far less bloody than the alternative), but then those were purely fission weapons. No fusing hydrogen.
Lastly, nukes are not wholly without practical applications. Pulsedrives would be a space propulsion system vastly superior to anything we use today. The concept is 50 years old. They could be used to move asteroids and comets around. Lots of uses, though the EMP is rather difficult to deal with.
Re:will this work? (Score:2)
Re:will this work? (Score:2)
its amazing, with this new-fangled internet thing, you can research things really quickly.
someone should try to make a buck off of it, its cool.
Re:will this work? (Score:2)
When you hear talk of a "clean bomb," its one without this secondary fissile material.
Re:will this work? (Score:5, Informative)
IIRC, tritium is very rare and only a few grams are used to "boost" the fission trigger. The main fusion fuel in most H bombs is a mixture of lithium and deuterium, which conveniently combine to form a solid chemical compound.
At any rate, in many bombs, the fusion is not even the main source of energy. It is used as a massive source of neutrons, instantly converting hundreds or thousands of pounds of dirt cheap unenriched uranium into fissionable fuel (unenriched uranium also avoids worries about dangerous multiple critical masses in one bomb). Many bombs get only about 1/3 of their energy from actual fusion, the rest is from the fast-neutron induced fission of the uranium blanket surrounding the fusion core. The end result orders of magnitude more fallout isotopes than a simple A-bomb.
Re:will this work? (Score:2, Informative)
Tritium is rare as it has a half life of only 12 years, but it can be produced my bombarding Lithium with neutrons. This is how currently designed Tokamak fusion reactors create part of their own fuel.
--
Andy
Re:will this work? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, they weren't H-bombs, but yes..
Study: 1950s nuclear fallout worse than thought [cnn.com]
Re:will this work? (Score:2, Insightful)
When the first atomic bomb was used, few people had any idea of how destructive it would be. The full potential of nuclear weapons only became evident after WWII. When the Allies told Stalin about the bomb, he responded with indifference, at least initially. President Truman authorized its use without much debate. He believed, and probably rightly so, that it would save lives by shortening the war.
It's easy to see how they could have underestimated "The Bomb." The first atomic bomb wasn't an H-Bomb, or a cluster bomb. It wasn't even housed in a missile. More people died in the firebombing of Dresden than at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The significance of nuclear weapons only became clear during the cold war, when both sides created massive stockpiles of bombs. The world could have ended then, at least for the U.S. and Russia. Whether or not humanity would have survived in some form is an open question.
So think before you condemn the U.S. for inventing the atomic bomb. Almost every country involved in WWII had a nuclear weapons program. America just happened to get there first. Unfortunately, we cannot unilaterally disarm now, although we should probably reduce the size of our stockpile.
In fact, from what I can tell, America is not "trigger-happy" at all. The last war, against Afghanistan, was fought with almost no loss of life on either side.
Re:will this work? (Score:2)
Also, they knew damn well how powerful the blast would be. What they didn't expect was the radioactive fallout. For decades after radioactive materials were still used for glow in the dark consumer objects (watch faces, for example).
Other than that though, I agree with your points. The nuclear attacks shocked an exceptionally stubborn and prideful country into surrendering, almost certainly reducing loss of life on both sides.
Re:will this work? (Score:2)
The war against Al-Quaeda isn't over, and thousands of people have been killed. How is that 'almost no loss of life' ?
Re:will this work? (Score:2)
They seek the glory of Allah, I'm proud to have my tax dollars sending them to it.
Re:will this work? (Score:2)
It's not over, yet.
Re:will this work? (Score:2)
Leo Scilzard (I probably spelled that wrong), a physicist who had worked on the Manhattan Project led a petition that many other scientists signed urging Truman not to use the bomb.
Whether or not it was the "right" decision is not a black and white issue, but it is wrong to say it happened "without much debate."
Re:will this work? (Score:2)
We haven't tested a device in almost ten years and have no real plans to resume, although to its discredit the Bush administration has begun talking about the possibility.
Re:will this work? (Score:2)
It'll be interesting in 40 years or so when the white house Gee Dubya Shrubya mp3's are released. Perhaps more anti-semetic nuclear-toting hothead "republican" action!
Just my $0.02, Taxed 15 ways.
Re:will this work? (Score:2, Insightful)
At the very least, this simulation shows that computers can be used to predict the results of very complex interactions between matter and energy. Surely these same supercomputers can be used to simulate other equally complex phenomena, and these tests break the ice for simulations to come.
On another note, the United States does not test any physical nuclear devices anymore, underground or otherwise.
Re:will this work? (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with the Test Ban Treaty is that it was written in a different era. Hopefully the events of 11 September indicates to you that there are more than enough people more than willing to kill themselves to inflict as much destruction on the United States as possible.
MAD doesn't work as an effective deterrent when your enemy is willing to die to kill you.
I saw a History Channel tagline that referenced nuclear weapons in the most relevant way: "Weapons so powerful, their mere existence implies 'Peace, or else.'"
This may be straying a bit off-topic here, but what if we hadn't developed the nuke? How many allied and Japanese forces would have died in the invasion of Japan had we not dropped the bomb? 125,000 civillian casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki pales in comparison to the amount of possible casualties. The USA estimates 1,000,000 allied casulties in such an invasion, maybe times that by 5 to get the number of Japanese killed.
Remember. Nukes suck. But they're the better than the alternative. However, straying back on topic
P.S. If you disagree, don't moderate, reply.
Re:will this work? (Score:2)
That's the ABM treaty, a treaty between just the U.S. and Russia. The CTBT is signed by nearly every civilized nation on earth, (including the U.S.) but ratified by very few (also not including the U.S.). We wouldn't exactly have to withdraw from it. (It's not binding since it isn't ratified.)
Clinton tried to get it ratified in his last couple of years, but had it tabled in the senate because he was going to loose the battle.
Re:will this work? (Score:2)
Er, the same can be said for missile-defense anti-nuke shields. The danger to the USA isn't from outside the borders: no one's likely to toss an nuke missle at New York. The danger is from within, when some madmen decide to use a suitcase nuke, mail out smallpox, or use cheap'n'easy fertilizer bombs to blow up a federal building.
The Star Wars shield is just an excuse for funneling endless money to the defense industry; all part of the trend of taking money from the middle-class and give it to the super-rich.
Re:will this work? (Score:2)
Seriously. We haven't detonated a nuclear warhead since September 23rd, 1992, an underground test called "Divider".
And I am disgusted by our government from time to time also. But my political views are.. well, too political, even for slashdot.
Re:will this work? (Score:2, Troll)
Our government most likely has been doing sims privately for years, ever since the cold war. Now i guess its no longer classified, kinda like the shadow government is no longer a secret.
As for ending nuclear weapons, we already have better weapons than nuclear, far more dangerous. We have mind control / altering weapons, we have weapons which can destroy all the buildings in an area without harming many people, we have we, weapons which can destroy all the electronics in a city maybe even a small country,we have germ warfare which could kill out millions of our enemies without any of them even noticing we are attacking them, we have the internet which we could use to cause their own people to turn againsnt their governments (if their government lets them on the net)
Nuclear weapons can do alot of damage but most of the damage is done to the enviornment and to the innocent people, not so much damage is done to the actual military enemy we'd be fighting if they have bunkers and caves and tunnels and bomb shelters. What good is nuke to someone who would survive it? Now germ warfare, and taking down all their electronics with one attack, and bombs which are made to destroy all their underground bases.
My point is, Nuke alone isnt useful, the only people interested in nuke are terrorists who want to kill innocent people.
If india were to use nuke on pakistan, lots of innocent people in pakistan would die, the military would launch nuke and many people in india would die, both countries would get absolutely no where.
Real wars are about missions, targets, and just throwing bombs around is not something thats usually done.
We threw a bomb at japan but it was because back then no one knew what nuke was.
Everyone knows about nuke now.
I worry more about the weapons which we dont know much about, or anything about at all, considering all the technology we have today, the weapons could be way more deadly and a country could be destroyed overnight by something like a virus which spreads through the air.
I worry about airborn unstoppable virii which kills people in a matter of hours.
Re:will this work? (Score:2)
The nuclear bomb is meant to be a THREAT! not actually used, all this is doing is making sure our stockpile can continue to be a threat.
If india were to use nuke on pakistan, lots of innocent people in pakistan would die, the military would launch nuke and many people in india would die, both countries would get absolutely no where.
Precisely. Which is why the nukes will *never* be used in either case. To do so would mean the destruction of either/both country's and massive world commendation. The bombs are simply deterance, or, again a THREAT against an attack and actually probably will make that area more stable in the long run (neither country wants to risk a nuclear war).
Real wars are about missions, targets, and just throwing bombs around is not something thats usually done.
Real wars are about survival and winning - without firing a shot. Nuclear weapons ensure the safety of many countrys - not a single country on earth would dare attack the U.S. directly b/c of fear of instant annihilation. Note that Taliban continued to protest its innocence until the very end; and since WWII their hasn't been a single convential attack upon the U.S. A span of 51 years.
We threw a bomb at japan but it was because back then no one knew what nuke was.
Ahhh, we knew precisely what the bomb would do - but the japanese didn't. We dropped the bomb to end the war and prevent millions of casulties that would've occured if we had invaded Japan. Even after Hiroshima/Nagasaki the majority of the Japanese war council didn't want to surrender. Only the (supposed) intervention of Emperor Hirohito caused them to surrender.
Obviously you dont keep up with technology (Score:3, Insightful)
Mind control weapons do exsist, and are used even b y low level forces such as swat teams. Mind Altering sounds and noises are the low tech mind control weapons, altering brain wave patterns with sound is easy, Mind control is easy using holographic technologies and altering brain waves you could convince small groups of people that god is speaking to them, and do all kinds of other tactics, yes our government DOES have alot of mind control technologies and holographic technologies.
Do you keep up with science? Its not fantasy, its in the labs, and if its in the labs, our government has weapons based on it.
Weapons which destroy building kill people in them yes, but the reason for having these weapons is to destroy entire cities and cripple an economy, imagine someone destroying all of the towers in new york in the middle of the night and everyone waking up and finding that all the buildings are crumbled.
Electronic warfare, we can easily take out an entire military force with this.
Germ warfare is far more dangerous than a nuke, a germ virus could kill every mammal on this planet, did you ever watch the movie the blob? You think something like that couldnt easily happen? An unstoppable virus or a bacteria could easily wipe out entire countries or even the world and only the people with the cure can stop it, even with all our weapons we'd die.
Armies have food, water, and weapons, and they have enough to last for years. Armies can grow their own food underground, water isnt difficult to get either its just hard to purify. Bomb Shelters that are for us arent very efficient, government quality bomb shelters are almost indestructable, we cant even nuke bin ladens cheap cave shelters. You try nuking Iraq, you think you'd kill saddam? No you'd just kill all his people and piss off the whole arab world.
You can have allthe nukes you want, you nuke, they nuke you back, now both of you lose, both your countries destroyed. This is not a very smart military strategy, its suicide.
This is why nuke is a suicide weapon, something a terrorist would use not a military.
Militaries of say Iraqs level are most likely to use germ warfare like antrax or perhaps something even worse.
Militaries like China,hey would use sophisticated electronics, destroy our electronics with stuff like EMP, and destroy our buildings all over night.
Militaries on our level would and maybe have used mind control warfare if we know the people we are using it on dont know about it yet, I think we'd use something like that in the middle east, would it work? At most it would drive them insane, at least it would confuse them on the battlefield, keep them from being able to think straight, and give us a psychhological advantage.
Yes its proven that sounds can do this, example? Scratch a chalkboard and listen to that sound, imagine a sound thats as bad or worse than that which is constant, you wouldnt be able to sleep, you wouldnt be able to think right, you'd be disoriented, theres sounds which can completely alter your brainwave patterns, and make you tired, even make you dizzy and pass out.
This stuff would be useless against a fairly intelligent military, but against some guys who just have basic weapons like machine guns and the like, who are backed into a corner or hiding in a cave, it would be useful, not to mention these techinques can be used to turn them against each other and keep them from being organized, remember the papers we passed out to afganastan about bin laden turning against them?
I'd say mind control would be one of the most dangerous weapons because you wouldnt know you are being manipulated.
As far as Nuke being the most powerful weapon? Not even close! Nuke can do alot of destruction which lasts a long timee and harms the enviornment, but nuke is not something any government is going to use, terrorists may use it, governments would never use nuke,heres why.
Out of all of these other ways to attack, nuke allows your enemy to know you attacked them.
How would your enemy know you used germ warfare against them? They'd just have a weird virus pop up out of no where.
How would they know you destroyed their electronics, all they'd know is a bomb destroyed it all, all of these other things can be made from within the enemies country and launched, nuke however you'd have to launch a missle, which means if you mess up you are being nuked, if you hit on target you are still going to be nuked, so you cant win.
The only thing we have to do is make sure no one can nuke us from within our own country. Nuke is no where near as easy to make as a virus or an EMP bomb, nuke requires gathering alot of things which are very difficult to get or create, and trying to smuggle nuke in is going to be almost impossiblew if the borders are properly monitored.
While nuke is dangerous, I think we have other more dangerous and pretty much unstopable technologies to worry about,
I think i'd have a better chance surviving a nukee than surviving the black plague.
oh and dont forget the fact that there could be genetic warfare, what would stop a government from changing the gene in say paracites, mosquitos etc which have a virus which spreads accross the USA and at a set period of time everyone in the USA dies. or paracites in the water.
Face it we all could drop dead tomorrow if some virus did get into all of our systems or some paracite did get into the water, if the virus was around for the last 20 years spreading then i'd say most of the population would be infected. If it were an airborn virus then everyone could be infected, and if its a virus thats set to kill a person after a set amount of time
how could you stop it?
I think germ warfare, all the genetics technologies, and biological stuff is more dangerous than nuke by far because we all could be dying and not even know it.
Re:will this work? (Score:2, Informative)
Reading these comments frightens me. Badly. Does anyone here even think that tactical thermonuclear devices are a good idea? Like, good enough to warrant having one in your backyard for your little sister to play on? Not me, and not my little sister.
Sakhmet.
Re:will this work? (Score:2)
(enable rant mode)
Well, cry me a freaking river. Poor little USA has to take on more responsibility than, say, Botswana. How unfair that we are expected to do more than people who can barely feed themselves! We can put a man on the moon, but ask us to clean up our own mess and all of a sudden we turn into a bunch of crybabies, whining about how unfair it is that we (who contribute the most to pollution, and enjoy the best of the fruits that also cause the pollution) are asked to do the most work to stop polluting.
Honestly, was there ever a bigger bunch of spoiled, pampered, arrogant, ignorant prigs? Every time I see an 8 mile per gallon, 6 ton SUV behemoth carrying its lone driver to the mall, it makes me wonder why we haven't been voted off the planet yet. (probably has something to do with those nukes
(end rant mode)
Re:will this work? (Score:2)
it makes me wonder why we haven't been voted off the planet yet. (probably has something to do with those nukes
From AP
In three decades, Botswana has moved from being one of the 10 poorest nations to being among the world's upper half in wealth.
and a quick look through the CIA fact-books tells me that over those three decades, we've probably given them almost a billion bucks in foreign aid, not including the one-time bail outs like the 10 million we spent helping them clean up the flood a few years ago, and certainly not adjusting for inflation, I'm too lazy.
There's a reason we ain't been 'voted off' by the 'poor, starving Botswana's, and it sure as hell ain't the nukes.
So where's the movie? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So where's the movie? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So where's the movie? (Score:2)
So was OJ Simpson...
Just because it is hard to prove that someone is a spy in a court of law, doesn't make them innocent. And there was definitely some hanky panky going on with those tapes he brought home and claimed to have destroyed. Nuclear testing data is sensitive stuff, and it is clear that at the least, he wasn't as careful as he should have been.
Re:So where's the movie? (Score:2)
Re:So where's the movie? (Score:2)
If we get in a war with someone (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If we get in a war with someone (Score:2)
Re:If we get in a war with someone (Score:2)
I think there was a Civil Air Defense drill back in the 50's or 60's where they did exactly this over New York City.
LV
Re:If we get in a war with someone (Score:5, Funny)
To: Saddam Hussain
Subject: I send you this file in order to have your advice...
Re:If we get in a war with someone (Score:2)
Title was "A Taste of Armageddon" (Score:2)
didn't we see this already... (Score:3, Funny)
oh wait...that was just matthew broderick in was games....
Intriguing Photos (Score:5, Informative)
I happened to stumble across one particular site with great photos: http://www.dtra.mil/about/photo_library/ab_combat
monolinux.com {Linux news only. No ads.} [monolinux.com]
Re:Intriguing Photos (Score:2)
What is the phenomena, demonstrated in this photo: here [dtra.mil] that causes the streamers in the background? I saw them in almost all the nuclear detenations in "Trinity and Beyond".
"why the smoke trails" Re:Intriguing Photos (Score:2)
good image (Score:2)
Re:Intriguing Photos (Score:2, Informative)
1) To measure the overpressure effects of the shock wave (a very useful tool to determine optimum blast height)
2) To gauge the size of the fireball (note the relatively even distribution of the streamers)
3) To give the capability to exactly duplicate a past test, using film stock as a gauge. You could then measure the exact detonation point of a shot from the streamers from multiple camera angles and simple math.
A better simulation we need: (Score:5, Insightful)
This may come across as offtopic, but I strongly believe that is where every red cent of our nuclear program money should be spent.
You can either find this material now or it can find you later.
US spends almost $1B/year on Russian nuke security (Score:2)
The Bush administration doesn't seem to see the wisdom in this, for some odd reason, and may curtail these programs.
Amitai Etzioni blows the whistle [speakout.com] on this stupid oversight.
The CDI also has a good editorial [cdi.org] on how American money spent to help Russia secure their nukes is making our nuke security better as well.
Vaguely amusing (Score:3, Interesting)
live testing (Score:2)
Can't help but think of how many units I could rack up with just a day on this baby though
Re:live testing (Score:3, Funny)
I think I heard that ASCI Blue Mountain is also used for designing greeting cards.
It could be that I'm slightly mixed up.
Without testing... (Score:3, Funny)
...sounds like my boss...
How accurate were the results? (Score:2)
Or is that secret?
750 years? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:750 years? (Score:2)
They just don't want to have to comply with the "military grade computer" requirements!
Re:750 years? (Score:2)
On that network you could run this nuke simulation twice a week. Without building a billion-dollar computer.
Of course, you're probably not going to get the same amount of participation with ATOM BOMB research as you are with CURING CANCER research (Do you know what that cute little screen saver is really doing? Bwa-ha-ha-haaa! -Erris [slashdot.org]). But overt ANTHRAX VACCINE research got a decent fraction of the way there, and is closer to the former than the latter, in practical terms.
--Blair
Certification of the stockpile (Score:5, Informative)
With this new computing power, the directors can now verify the status of even degraded weapons whose functionality was up till now a mystery and make better decisions about how to use the still small amounts of tritium being produced.
FPS If this computer were used to run Quake 3 (Score:4, Funny)
One of them they gave statistics that it did the work of 750 years worth of computer time in 39 days.
First lets figure out how many days there are in 750 years
750*365.25(accounting for leap year) ~= 273937
Thats 273,937 days in 750 years (give or take a couple of weeks)
Now 273,937 / 39 gives us are actual ratio which is a factor of 7024.
This means that the los Alsomething is 7024 times as fast.
Now a typical computer now a days can run quake 3 at around an average fps of 60.
7024 * 60 gives us the fps of the super computer.
Which is a grand total of 421,422 FPS!!!!
My only question... When can I buy one?
Re:FPS If this computer were used to run Quake 3 (Score:2, Interesting)
You can't.
As far as I know, the ASCI White system is pretty much "classified" in a way. I know it uses Power3 processors... over 8000 of them, in fact. And it has a mesh-type interconnect... very expensive stuff here. You can see how it compares here [top500.org]
Note that the second most powerful supercomputer peaks at HALF the GigaFlops... there's some serious power there. Though that list is technically innacurate... the #2 machine only has 3000 processors, and 8 on standby in case of hardware failure. That one is an "open" cluster, however. I don't think it's opened quite yet, and I can't even remember the name... something French... LeMue or somesuch.
I did take a look at it once, though. Sweet machine(s) :-) And you can't help but be impressed when you learn that it took 4.5 TONS of cabling to wire that puppy!
Re:FPS If this computer were used to run Quake 3 (Score:2)
That's less impressive if you've every worked with cabling those high end systems. 4.5 tons of Craylink would only be like 100 feet (at least when you have to carry it around all day.
It's not quite that bad, but when you have 500 conductor cables the weight does add up quick.
Definately not the first (Score:2)
I'm sure our government has done it 20-30 years ago but its been classified.
If anyone honestly believes its the first EVER and that our military didnt do this kinda stuff during the cold war they are crazy.
trillions of dollars have been spent over the last serveral years, 10s of trillions over the last 20 years and this is the first sim, in 2002? hahaha a joke right?
Re:Definately not the first (Score:2, Insightful)
Just think about how much physics is needed for this. Hudge temperature gradients, wavefronts the list is endless. This all has to be simulated.
We can't even simulate weather properly yet becasue of lack of computing power.
Re:Definately not the first (Score:2)
So you have top secret military clearance? how do you know? Oh wait because they said so? you believe everything they said?
You cant believe what the government says, classified means they wont tell you about it or will lie to you until they are read to announce it.
Its announced now, but it could have been simulated in a classified fashion in the past.
Re:Definately not the first (Score:2)
The question is how did they have the computer power? Even for the military, these computer prices are a bit expensive, and with Moore's law, we haven't had the computing power available at any cost until recently.
Re:Definately not the first (Score:2)
That's the thing about secrecy, you never know!
It's not likely, but it is possible. BTW- Moore's law is no more a law than Murphey's law. It's just a prediction that is uncannily true so far.
If we stopped developing all new processors, I guess that would disprove Moore's law? Suppose AMD hadn't made an end run on Intel. do you think processors would be as fast as they are today? My point is, the rate of processor speed (or transistor density for the purist), isn't dictated by any law, it's dictated by how much effort we put into it, which is dictated in part by market forces when you are tlaking about corporations.
Re:Definately not the first (Score:2)
A multi-billion dollar project - so we can see how a nuke explodes? It makes much more sense to use that money to keep bases open or build more planes and warships, considering how tight the military budget has been recently.
That's the thing about secrecy, you never know!
Ergo, cognito sum. We truely know almost nothing. Rational deduction from sensory input can lead us far, though.
Hmmm... (Score:2, Funny)
Final Fantasy (Score:2)
In 20 years we can do it at home (Score:2, Informative)
Re:In 20 years we can do it at home (Score:2)
Deep Blue used ASICs to boost operations that were specific to chess. Anyway, I guess their PR department needed an easy comparison.
addendum... (Score:2, Funny)
In a related story, the updated software was found to contain massive amounts of spyware. [newsbytes.com]
LTBT, TTBT, and other trivia (Score:2, Interesting)
Okay, if you use google, then you could likely find all of this. You are karma whores (maybe).
In response to the the LTBT, the USA (and others) implemented the WWSSN to help monitor nuclear testing (go to google and type in WWSSN). I looked at a lot of WWSSN records from TLA WWSSN sites).
After the TTBN treaty is passed, the USA accuses the USSR of cheating; the axle (note, one hub) of evil is detonating bigger bombs than 150 KT. It is later recognized by scientists that bombs detonated in Nevada will produce a bigger recorded seismic signal that those in Novya Zemlya. Nevada has more highly attenuating rock in the area, Novya Zemlya is more solid bedrock. About ten years later it is finally believed that the Ruskies didn't cheat.
It has been speculated and investigated that a rogue nation could detonate a big mother bomb in an evacuated cavern. This "hollow" bomb chamber would severely attenuate the outgoing seismic signal. Hmmm, dig a hole that could hold the Statue of Liberty...
Got to go to sleep before I ramble all night.
Moore's Law (Score:2)
Don't let that program get out... especially on a "misplaced" hard disk...
Re:Moore's Law (Score:2)
Slightly OT... is Slashdot supposed to pay $50? (Score:2, Funny)
(PRC# 3.4676.620668) [icopyright.com]
Wondering what a PRC article was, I followed it, only to discover various ways I couly pay to use this article.
One of the options is "HTML Link : Publisher's permission to link to an article." and they charge $50 for this privledge. Apparently this whole scheme is managed by iCopyright.com
I thought there was some legal precedence in the past allowing deep linking. What happened?
MOD PARENT UP!!! (Score:2)
It's probably just trolling (not the way slashdot people use trolling).
Icopyrgight.com probably just fishes for suckers to pay the fee. If someone links to the site who is a little guy, they will just pay the $50 rather than try to fight it in court. Inethical business model, hope to see them sued into oblivion. Bastards.
They're here... (Score:2)
They should GPL the code!!! (Score:2, Troll)
Hey, everyone should email Los Alamos and see if they'll GPL the code. Wouldnt' that be great!?
(OT) Aside concerning TRON (Score:2)
Re:Realism (Score:2, Funny)
No
Re:Realism (Score:2, Funny)
Re:First ever? (Score:2)
This machine is 10 *time* faster than the last ASCI supercomputer (Red), and still takes a week or so to complete the run.
Of course, the software has also been developing at the same time, so I think that what they mean (and say) is that this is the first COMPLETE simulation, is: they have finally got the hardware and software all working together for the whole of the problem all at once, a big step.
Have a look at http://www.top500.org to see the top supercomputers out there, and note this is number one. Of course, there may be machine NOT on this list (and I'm sure there are) but they are probably not really as 'general purpose' as this (I'm thinking the NSA has afew squirreled away somewhere).
to get an idea of the kind of software these beasts run, try http://acts.nersc.gov/overture/main.html or http://www.llnl.gov/casc/Overture
you can, of course, run this on a (*nix based) PC, but trust me, it takes time, and you will not be simulating a big system!
Re:First ever? (Score:2)
Re:What exacly are they trying to learn? (Score:4, Informative)
It's quite simple, they are trying to find out how long the current weapons will keep working, and how the rate of failure changes over time.
These devices contain quite an amount of rather radioactive material, which emits a lot of high energy particles, this causes other materials around them to change over time, therefore then need to know if they will stay safe, and will work if required.
The worked out how to build a 'big enough bomb' quite some time ago, but building new devices is expensive, as it blowing them up from time to time for testing, simulating the 'aging' devices is a much cheaper and simpler option, as well as providing supercomputing power for 'other' work.
Re:What exacly are they trying to learn? (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, the early nuclear tests were conducted in such an irresponsible and criminally negligent manner that hundreds of thousands of Americans were radiologically poisoned by iodine fallout from the atmospheric blasts in Nevada. The government sometimes has its own agenda, and that agenda need not involve the people.
Re:What exacly are they trying to learn? (Score:2)
Z
Re:Innovation... (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, here's a thought:
With all due respect, kwishot, like many Slashdot posters you're posting out of your ass and while you might win points among the equally ignorant you turn yourself into a laughingstock for those with a greater understanding.
The nuclear weapons complex is under the purview of the US Department of Energy. Almost since it was created from AEC/ERDA in the mid 1970s, DOE has been under attack for its poor organization, poor administration, and poor security record. Multiple panels and commissions and auditors spent their time submitting final reports and recommendations suggesting that the security aspect of the weapons complex be removed from DOE control or at least placed in the hands of a semi-autonomous agency.
After the _annus horribilis_ that was 2000 for Los Alamos, support both public and Congressional was high for these recommendations to be implemented. New Mexico Republican Senator Pete Domenici introduced legislation which would create the National Nuclear Security Administration as a semi-autonomous agency within DOE and that legislation passed with support from both parties and was signed into law by Democratic President Clinton. (Side note: then Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, former Democratic Congressman from, yep, New Mexico, took a well-publicized pummeling from members of both parties, not least of which was West Virginia's Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, who told Richardson that he could never vote to confirm Richardson for another government position again.)
I'm not a supporter of Clinton's -- his decision to appoint Hazel O'Leary as his first Energy Secretary will be a long, Long, LONG time in overcoming (among her since-revoked brilliant ideas was eliminating the color-coded badges which were used to provide a visual cue of a person's clearance level in favor of a less "discriminatory" monochrome badge). To fall to your knees and give thanks that an agency created in the closing year of his administration survived the eight year Reign of Terror just reveals that you don't have the first clue what you're addressing. Next time you're tempted to fire off a post on a topic to whose table you bring complete ignorance, may I suggest that you instead spend a few moments educating yourself -- and only then, if you feel you have something of value to contribute, should you click on "Submit".
Re:Innovation... (Score:2)
But since he asked wouldn't it be impolite? (Score:2)
Re:But since he asked wouldn't it be impolite? (Score:2)
Your milage may vary, particularly since I use kilometres.
Sorry - you're wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
So, in all actuallity, Clinton either started this or continued it on from his predecessor. GWB had jack to do with it other than to see the results and maybe a final bill.
-JDWe'd have more technology by far if democrats were (Score:2)
Democrates arent the ones who have had these trillion dollar tax cuts which only benifit rich people.
This had nothing to do with bush, bush cuts taxes so that means less funding not more.
Re:Nope. (Score:2)
This is probably the best it could have worked out. Obviously, this computational testing program has the support of both parties. It's very difficult to actually push a single-party agenda that big, and sustain it unilaterally.
And if we need to, we just run a real test. Hell, France did it, and what lasting consequences have they endured? None. The only lasting consequences have been to the ecology.
Re:How do you simulate a nuclear explosion? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hmm.... (Score:2)
Not to mention that you'd be distributing the software to every country on Earth that's interested in nuclear weapons simulation, which would be STUPID.
Re:In 20 years we can do it at home (Score:2)
Hans Moravec estimates the human mind
to have the computationial power of around
10 THz, This machine ought to be able to emulate
a human mind in real time. Which to me is more
useful then simulating nuclear weapons.
Time to build a proper X-ray holographic scanner,
and start uploading the worthy.
Re:In 20 years we can do it at home (Score:2)
Why do you expect anything different from any other piece of technology? We already know the physical limits of silicon, and we're close to predicting the limits of protien based chips. We'll hit those limits (within the industry) in between five and ten years. Even then, to make a desktop machine that fast will cost lots of space, electricity, and money.
Conclusion: we can't know much about what video games will be like in 20 years.
Re:Mmmmm. (Score:2)